cyber-framework-mapping

Cyber Framework Mapping

Priority: P1 (HIGH)

Map only evidenced relationships; catalog context is not proof of efficacy, compliance, or coverage.

Structure

cyber-framework-mapping/
├── SKILL.md
├── references/edge-record.md
└── evals/evals.json

Workflow

1. Name framework, version, stable ID, and exact source URL or document section.
2. Choose relation (supports, describes, observed-as, partial, unknown, or conflicts).
3. Write a bounded rationale tied to an evidence record, not a generic similarity.
4. Set review status: reviewed, needs-review, or unreviewed; include reviewer and date when reviewed.
5. Preserve empty or unknown mappings explicitly; do not infer a complete catalog.
6. On a version/source change, preserve the prior versioned edge and its evidence unchanged. Create a separately versioned candidate linked to the prior record, mark it needs-review, and re-review; never overwrite historical mappings.

Rules

• Prefer primary framework publications and official technique catalogs.
• Keep framework IDs version-qualified; never silently merge revisions.
• Separate a mapped edge from a control claim, measured efficacy, or compliance assertion.
• Link shared evidence fields for observation provenance. For mapped observations, carry engagement_scope_ref, skill_version, source, observed_at, finding_status, evidence_refs, limitations, and accountable_owner.

Anti-Patterns

• No broad equivalence: One keyword does not establish a mapping.
• No version drift: Verify the current revision before reusing an ID.
• No compliance leap: Mapping never certifies a control or outcome.
• No fabricated completeness: Mark unknown edges and gaps.

References

• Framework edge schema